The Wrath of Rodriguez
Written by duckrabbitI’m In Malmo, Sweden, with the photographer Joseph Rodriguez. We’re working on a radio documentary and photofilm about how a whole generation of young immigrants are being lost to a life of crime and social inequality.
Over the last four days we’ve been hanging with some of these young people. It’s been a troubling experience, not least because drug dealing, violence and guns are endemic. That’s not a term I would use lightly, but this is the first time in my life I’ve had to stop an interview whilst a nineteen year old casually removes a 9mm hand-gun from his jacket (before you ask, not in any way for show)
Those are just some of the facts. But facts and reality are too separate things. The reality is that many of the young people feel utterly lost, utterly unwanted and utterly worthless. That’s not our opinion, that’s exactly what they have been fronting up and telling us.
The photo below is taken at a photo event in Sweden we dropped in two nights ago. Joseph was invited to speak. Here’s the condensed version of his speech:
“I find it interesting that an American has to come all the way from New York to photograph a story so important to Sweden, a country with such a strong tradition of documentary photography.
Perhaps someone can tell me why that is?”
Here was another comment made to me after the event. Maybe it answers Joseph’s question?
“Do you really think anyone cares?”
Picture: Benjamin Chesterton
Fiyat (c) Benjamin Chesterton
Author — duckrabbit
duckrabbit is a production company formed by radio producer/journalist Benjamin Chesterton and photographer David White. We specialize in digital storytelling.
Discussion (31 Comments)
Now there you have a good point Duck! May it be that shocking documentary work is easier digested when made somewhere viewers may not be challenged to take responsibility for some of the issues involved? This is obviously quoting Susan Sontag’s Regarding The Pain Of Others, where she analyses the general thought that too much misery photography numbs people to be a common misconception, arguing the impossibilities to actually do something about these situations is what makes viewers turn away. Now with this one it’s a different story. Bring the shit back home and do people still want to look at it? Seems you’re saying they don’t and I think you’re right. Why is that? Could it be the next logical question would be: “So what are we going to do about it?” and nobody has any answers there, a kind of mass bystander effect? There is a lot that can be said about photojournalism these days, the inability or reluctance to truly cover serious issues in our own societies is one of them. This one specifically is heavily politicized in Europe, as well. Tough call, bring in the Americans 😉
Important thoughts and questions Diederik.
Not sure what I’m saying, if anything at all. I live in a city where there is highest level of child poverty in the UK. Have I looked at the story? No. Maybe I’m scared.
Fair enough Duck, I know the feeling, working on nighttime street photography close to the red light district here in Amsterdam, attracting attention from the wrong inner city crowd, overhearing an even worse crowd pointing me out as a police informer. I was more scared than I had been in Congo or in Chili after the earthquake. It’s really intense, because you don’t fly away a couple of days later, people can just follow you home. There’s an interesting discussion on Lightstalkers that touches on whether Western media companies take sufficient care of local stringers, taxi drivers and translators when they get hurt in assisting Western journalists, the general suggestion is they don’t. This is the other side of the coin. Fear is real and should always be taken seriously.
I know I sound naive (and I work in the field here just outside NYC), but isn’t that our job, as documentary photographers, to bring attention to a subject? I am a believer in the work being done at Ashoka and Dowser.org, who believe in highlighting a positive aspect in these kind of stories, so people see exactly HOW they can do something. it helps the viewer to not feel completely helpless and hopeless. it is not to generate donations, it is to make social entrepreneurship contagious.
is there no one working with these kids? any local non-profits? schools? churches? does the documentary work exist only to show the need or to show even baby steps that are being taken?
have you shared the video/photofilm “Undesired” by Walter Astrada? http://mediastorm.com/publication/undesired , it is an overwhelming subject about women in India, but there is hope at the end. I think our job is to show both sides, IF possible. if there is no positive to be shown then so be it.
respectfully submitted.
Chris Peters – “to make social entrepreneurship contagious” – Love that!
@Chris
“…so people see exactly HOW they can do something. it helps the viewer to not feel completely helpless and hopeless. it is not to generate donations, it is to make social entrepreneurship contagious.”
I’m with iamnot. I hope this idea spreads.
Susie Linfield recently made the point that, in the West, documentary photographers today are working in the absence of widespread social justice movements.
In the ’30s, for instance, ordinary Americans who were angered by the poverty that they saw in the documentary photography of the time, they knew what to do — join the workers’ movement or, at the very least, support the New Deal.
In the ’60s, when they saw photos of police and dogs attacking Civil Rights activists in the American South, they knew what to do — join the freedom struggle, or, at the least, support Civil Rights legislation.
When people all over the world saw, say, Philip Jones Griffiths’ photos from Vietnam, they knew what to do — join the anti-war movement.
When people worldwide saw the photos made by South African struggle photographers in the ’80s, they knew what to do — join the anti-apartheid movement or, at the least, call on elected officials to impose sanctions on the apartheid state.
Today, things are very different. Social movements are marginal, not mainstream. When we see poverty, suffering, and injustice, at home and abroad, it’s not always clear what we can do about it. I’ve got to wish the groups you mentioned — Ashoka and Dowser.org — the best luck in the world in changing that dynamic.
Hasn’t the book “Half the Sky” by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn reached across the pond yet? http://www.halftheskymovement.org – it covers some of the worst atrocities being committed against women worldwide, yet it is uplifting and inspiring.
this article (link below) on Kristof’s blog gives some expamples of Social Entrepreneurs and discusses it more:
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/how-to-change-the-world/?scp=2&sq=maggie+doyne&st=cse
and thanks much John and Iamnot… I agree, social movements are not mainstream anymore. they are fine-tuned and more focused now. NGO’s are the fastest growing ‘industry’ worldwide. (but I can’t remember where I read that).
Carl T. Rowan- It is often easier to become outraged by injustice half a world away than by oppression and discrimination half a block from home.
Something Mr. Rodriguez has acknowledged and dealt with himself- let’s hope he can inspire others to do the same, so that this question no longer remains one to be asked.
After a career outside of the frame and looking at the generosity of people in everyday life outside of PJ’ism, it is my view that PJ’ism needs to work harder to bring the public into a conversation that they want to be part of. But then I read the comments on this blog and see that there are plenty of you out there who see that too, because we are so obviously searching for solutions.
Social movements need to come from this industry. Better ideas, more effectiveness, better transparency to audiences. Tap them up and inspire them. Social movements have subsided in the age of debt aplenty. Paying that debt back will cost society no matter the politics of how. PJ’ism needs to do better and the people running it have to work much, much, harder.
Looking at Just Giving in the UK, 12 million people have backed the 9,000 registered charities through JustGiving, raising £700million in the process. That means that a huge amount of goodwill to be tapped into for social entrepreneurship to flourish.
If making a difference is what’s going to build trust in the medium of PJ’ism again, and if having a single authored superstar piece that gives the marginalised “a voice” though the brilliance of their aesthetic vision has become a massive cliche, why does this industry not react and organise itself to harness the power of what you all say?
That really amazes me why this does not happen – that this resource to want to do some good is not utilised better by the people running the industry. Why not give people the chance to make a difference?
It must be because they are too busy being brilliant PJ’ists/agencies to listen. I hope I am wrong but the evidence is not great given they have presided over an industry that has been in decline for far too long. Quite simply if they did listen, then they would know the desire to change and do much better than they are is out there.
I personally would love to see more suggestions like social entrepreneurship being discussed here as that can only help.
@ Iamnot
I agree, and I too, am equally as frustrated. but lo and behold, I am a staff photographer for a local newspaper 🙂 and sometimes I suggest stories but due to extreme cutbacks, I can barely keep up with all my assignments. I know the editors want to do more socially-conscious work, but the industry does not permit it these days. thank gawd for the internet! this is what is killing newspapers (among other issues) but it is expanding multimedia outlets and providing opportunities for us who want to do more than just cover what we’re told to.
I have set a goal for myself to be working in some sort of a social entrepreneur capapcity within the next 2 years or less. but alas, I must pay the bills so I can not do it as a volunteer… hence why I can not quit my day job yet. but I will.
also – have you checked out Re:Act Media? an agency geared towards working with NGO’s, the complete package even down to helping them to get the grant money for mulitmedia projects. http://www.re-actmedia.com
Here in America, a great part of the problem is that it is also quite routine for major media to distort, omit and outright lie- and it’s all quite LEGAL!
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/
We now rely on… comedians who have taken up the gauntlet and become our de facto journalists and fact checkers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/bill-maher-vs-jon-stewart_n_779944.html
Journalism (of any kind) is just not on the screen of everyday Americans- it’s for those people who… read books and stuff (those chastised and christened “the elite”).
Shit’s really crazed here- we’re one half step from that age old tradition of burning books.
Stan B. – If the mainstream media has become so opinionated that it lacks the ability to taken seriously, then the gap for more mature informative objective platforms of story telling must be getting bigger.
It appears from the outside, Fox News and Jon Stewart are presuming that the information they refer to in their work that they is already present in the minds of the public because of the ability of the internet to do that quicker than they can.
I do not think that is sustainable in the mainstream as trust in the news they present is eroded by politics – pretty much what has happened to photojournalism in the era of the superstar photographer.
Opportunities can come up from anywhere, taking advantage of them takes an open mind.
Not sure the current PJ’ism industry has the ideology to react, learn and execute at the pace needed in this era of technological change given their record but that means the opportunity is out there for all.
“Not sure the current PJ’ism industry has the ideology to react, learn and execute at the pace needed in this era of technological change given their record but that means the opportunity is out there for all”
yes!! yes!!
Not– I hope for everyone’s sake that you are absolutely right, what you said makes absolute sense. What I’m trying to say is that to an increasingly large extent- logic no longer makes sense here. Hasn’t for quite some time.
Americans repeatedly vote against their own self interest, and when told (and shown) how and why- they quickly respond by kicking themselves in the ass yet again in the next election. It’s no wonder why it takes a comedian to make sense of any of it.
Here, we not only need more truth tellers- we desperately need to reeducate people to once again recognize the truth. They’ve long forgotten what it smells and looks like.
It is not even “truth”… I mean I am not sure in the world of human politics that “truth” can be achieved but searching for objectivity is a different thing altogether. Bring back more objective photojournalism (less of those hero’s looking for a cheap shock in a disastrous situation abroad in a particular visual style – you know who you are!).
There is a massive difference between exploiting the subject matter in pursuit of a headline by stoking up emotions rather than informing an audience through the emotions of the people documented.
The latter is heartfelt/objective and the former is exploitative/sensationalist. That is where the difference lies. This is how you build a better relationship with a quality audience.
Trust the people, don’t re-educate them. Trust that if you give them something of substance to believe in, enough of a quality of audience can be created for a sustainable future.
I want to trust, I want to believe in the basic common sense and decency of the common man-that’s where my roots lie. Unfortunately, a fundamentalist fringe faction have been empowered here- by Republicans, corporations and individuals like the Koch brothers. They now preside over how much of the discussion is configured here, throughout the media. It’s not easy having a rational discussion with someone who believes that the world was made in six days and is 6,000 years old, that evolution means monkeys turn into humans, and that gays can transform themselves into “normal” people if only they so desired.
My apologies all around if I diverted the conversation from its original subject matter. I speak from frustration, and the unfortunate reality that creates and defines it. Photojournalism will survive as long as there is a story that needs to be told. For that reason alone, it is more important now than ever.
Stan, of all people, you are one who never needs to apologize on the duckrabbit. Afterall you are the guy who inspired me to blog!
Geez, duck! You’re giving me that warm, fuzzy feeling- and I haven’t even had a pint yet.
And to think I only got into it for the money.
PS- You got the expression on JRod’s face just right- god, how I know that feelin’!
@IAM: what’s a quality audience??
Good question
A quality audience = anybody with an open mind about the world who does not know much about photography already.
People who are willing to think for themselves given the information available to them. The most curious and actually the most able to scrutinise for themselves. People who are willing to change their behaviour outside the frame through what they see without the need to shock and sensationalise inside it.
Bad quality audience = highly politicised + closed minded, the establishment of PJ’ism (what have most of them done except profit from their cult following?), want-to-be-photojournalists. Those who have already made up their minds about life and only seek to show what they think others should know because it is just too important for them not to.
One group is willing to change their mind. The other is not. One is worth influencing whilst the other is not. Parts of PJ’ism are like private members invitation only closed clubs that sells a cult to make money from (lets face it, it is economically, ideologically and career opportunity wise as hard to get in as a cult is!) so they are just one example of being closed.
People around the world pay top dollar to change people’s minds. You can do it using base instincts by going for the jugular because you think you have the right but all you will appeal to are people moved by base instincts. They do not last very long and after the emotions have long gone and you risk leaving the audience only with the memories of being shocked and sad. Keep doing this and shock and sadness business and it will eventually lead to anger and depression. People who care about doing something will walk away from that and it is these people who need to be re-engaged – they are the the quality audience.
(Just my personal opinion but look at this for an example – http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/11/07/world/1248069290784/burning-desperation.html – how many times does the photographer start her sentences with the word “I”? Where is the context? I feel both exploited because I am left ignorant and angry because I am taking on this journey where the end of the piece is not used to prove any journalistic point. Tell me about the kind of abuse, the situation of the women, the cultural reasons for these events. Even in the words itself… “she just looked at me and said ‘…she is almost already dead. Of course she will die, it does not matter. Take her picture.'” Wow. ‘Take her picture because I am so down that I cannot be bothered care’ the lady effectively says. Snap. Like there are not enough enough shots of the pain already to make the point. Are there any depths people will not go to just to get close to the misery through documenting outcomes rather than the CAUSALITY? Am I the only one to be horrified given all the possible different ways of showing the story? You get a base response but you put viewers through an emotional journey and for what? Where is the journalism? Where is the interview outside of the clinic. A sociologist, an expert in woman’s issues in Afghanistan, a cultural view giving context, a man describing an Afghan view of woman’s sociological place in society, a survivor even – fancy that idea for an ending, shooting someone who has survived to talk about her life. Come on NYT = You do some really AMAZING stuff http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/1-in-8-million/index.html)
Maybe we should try and connect to everybody, regardless their quality. I agree with your point of context. Context, emotion and good storytelling is what can make those connections. I also believe that requires bringing viewers something that really matters to them. By the way, on a separate topic, how much of the fundamental differences spotted in this discussion are really matters of taste? Objectivity is debatable, Wittgenstein learned us that all facts are contingent, they are constructions of the brain formed from sensory imput, modern brain science learns that the process is colored by brain history..
Wow … Wittgenstein is the inspiration for duckrabbit … it was him that first brought attention to the duckrabbit image.
Wow… I am not sure that I can say anything about Wittgenstein off the top of my head!
But as in his theory of language, words are meaningless without the context in which they are used. Same with images.
True objectivity is an impossible but worthy pursuit. Giving up to subjectivity is to give up on trying to share information for a new generation searching for facts – it is lazy and short-termist.
You can try to connect to everybody but given the scope of that challenge, you will end up connecting to nobody. Know your market, give them something they want and (this is the bit I am betting PJ’ism agencies do not do enough of) make sure you test that they want it.
Its simple really.
I am with you on that, I should have written: language constructions, instead of constructions, point taken! My personal impression is that many times, the people that dig the work are those who were already willing to listen in the first place. I disagree with you on giving up to subjectivity. To me, accepting that you are subjective and explaining what choices you made along the way is a good alternative to pretending to be objective. You say that PJ agencies are not giving their market enough of what that market wants. I can’t say I agree. Who and what is that market exactly? What are they asking and how are the agencies not delivering? Can we make this specific? Practise seems to prove this point wrong, at least to some extent, as there are still some of those agencies around and operating.
Listen to the chatter on the net…
2006
http://ddunleavy.typepad.com/the_big_picture/2006/12/the_demise_of_p.html
2007
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/getty_photojournalism_is_not_dead_news_135499.html?aff=rss
2008
http://photocritic.org/photo-journalism/
2009
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0907/revisiting-the-death-of-photojournalism-ten-years-later.html
2010
http://www.epuk.org/Opinion/961/for-gods-sake-somebody-call-it
…and that was without even trying too hard to look.
Where is it healthy? I do not want to make it specific as I see no value in pointing out weak business. They should be free to fail own their own unless they either i) receive some form of public cash ii) say that they are the best.
Anybody else should be free to do things they believe in. Sustainability does not have to be something people want. They might just want a hobby, have a tight knit close group of friends with shared interests, be part of a scene, be activists etc, etc.
The accounts of agencies will not be publicly available and some money is being made but I do not see anybody investing into the industry. All the establishment does is take it out for themselves.
Market – camera apps and DSLR have sold like never before. Photography has never been so popular.
Objectivity and subjectivity argument is personal opinion but the more objective you are, the more accessible the story and the broader the audience. Go in to subjectivity and you need to find fans of who you are. I bet there are more of the former than there is of the latter!
That’s not really convincing me, you’re feeding me more opinions, I’d like to see some hard facts… “The more objective you are, the more accessible the story and the broader the audience.” This is not always true, take Michael Moore for instance, very accessible, broad audience, hardly objective… In fact, one could easily substitute objective with politicized in that quote of yours and it would hold equal truth, if you ask me.
I agree … journalism is an artform that is enhanced by intensity of purpose. Rarely, if ever does that come from a drive for objectivity.
Good documentary gets us to the point of why someone cares.
@diederik
Not sure Michael Moore’s film maximised it potential given the backing he had from the studio’s. I certainly found it incomplete as a piece of journalism on the credit crunch but Moore had the Hollywood marketing machine backing him via Harvey Weinstein. This little 11 min piece does more: http://crisisofcredit.com/ and it is entertaining too given what it talks about!
I am not sure what “facts” I can give you about an objective vs subjective debate because as I tried to qualify before when I stated “is personal opinion” so all I can do is give mine for debate. Nobody can afford to say they are right. All we can do is follow our beliefs whilst questioning them at the same time.
@duckrabbit
Maybe not ‘a drive for objectivity’ as such, as impossible as that ultimately is, making sure enough information is objective should be part of the journalistic deal with the public. Documentary gives you more space to be subjective if one believes as I do, they are two distinct ways of showing a story but both have to be trusted mediums. I agree that your ‘intensity of purpose’ is also part of the complex mix yet I am not sure I see them contrary to each other.
Again, that is just my personal opinion… nothing else!
nice pics duck.